Get a free Kyle Rittenhouse at Culver's

Ambiturner · Nov 13, 2021

Ritley said:
Not just law enforcement, they are also vigilantes. So many daredevils and Batmans around.

Wait, if a cop stops someone committing a property crime are they then a vigilante??

Shmoopy · Nov 13, 2021

Fascist ideas like "self defense", "due process", and the "facts of the case".

Ritley · Nov 13, 2021

Ambiturner said:
Wait, if a cop stops someone committing a property crime are they then a vigilante??

No, because they are law enforcement duh. If I see someone pouring gasoline around my neighbors house though I am a vigilante if I stop them from lighting it.

Arbitrary · Nov 13, 2021

If you shoot someone in their fucking face for smashing up windows you're a vigilante. Doing security guard shit like standing around deterring people from breaking everything is not vigilantism.

Zapatta · Nov 13, 2021

Ambiturner said:
Wait, if a cop stops someone committing a property crime are they then a vigilante??

Lets not go into silly hypotheticals, you that never happens anymore.

Lendarios · Nov 13, 2021

Arbitrary said:
If you shoot someone in their fucking face for smashing up windows you're a vigilante. Doing security guard shit like standing around deterring people from breaking everything is not vigilantism.

Vigilantism is exactly that. doing law enforcement stuff when the law enforcement agencies are not doing their job.

It must certainly is preventing people from doing crimes. They key element of vigilantism is that the government cant or wont help solve the situation.

Borzak · Nov 13, 2021

Concerned citizen doing what needed to be done, AKA some people just need killing. Except for Portland a lot of the BLM crap kind of died off afterwards. Mission accomplished.

Hosix · Nov 13, 2021

popsicledeath said:
The prosecution reading of it is that it's always illegal for a 16-17 year old to possess a firearm, but if that illegal firearm is illegally possessed during those other cited instances this law applies, not the others.

It may be the intent of the law, and the misdemeanor charges for minors in violation aspect is clear, but the wording would be so poor if the intent were that it's always illegal for a 16-17 to possess. It would be very easy legally to make that clear, and make clear which law would apply to minors.

Instead the law goes out of its way to clarify possession specifically for rifles and shotguns, specifically for 16-17 year olds?

For a 15 year old the minor in possession law applies because the law clarifies any under 16. If C wasn't to clarify the specific circumstances of rifles and shot guns for 16-17 year olds being legal except if your otherwise doing illegal activity, then why even address that specific circumstance? Just make the law for anyone under 18, not under 16.

Imagine in farm country it being illegal for all 17 years olds to possess any firearm. You're 17 and a predator is threatening livestock. Sorry, not allowed to pick up the most common farm firearms: shotguns and rifles.

That doesn't mesh with existing law in a lot of places nor American culture. So the law seems to be creating a compromise and carve out for circumstances and expectations that are more common in rural America.

Does a city prosecutor even care to understand this? Or just reads the law in the way that least benefits those country bumpkin he doesn't align with ideologically?

Every angle I look at that law makes me side with the defense interpretation. The fact there is even confusion is concerning, though. If the law had been applied equally and without dispute then there wouldn't be a question.

Meaning, either way this is interpreted, my guess is somewhere a 16-17 year old was either wrongly convicted or wrongly allowed to illegally possess a dangerous weapon.

My guess, as often happens, urban PA offices have been applying the laws differently than rural. And as we've seen especially in recent years, intentionally for political reasons, not out of a simple misunderstanding of the intent of the law.

Even laws that put people in jail can be wildly misinterpreted until a high enough profile case comes along and creates attention to it.

Don't know the intent of that section for 16-17 year olds, but either way it's an obvious issue that probably affected a lot of people already so hopefully this case settles some law on the issue.

You post intelligent shit in here. Carry on

Arbitrary · Nov 13, 2021

Lendarios said:
Vigilantism is exactly that. doing law enforcement stuff when the law enforcement agencies are not doing their job.

It must certainly is preventing people from doing crimes. They key element of vigilantism is that the government cant or wont help solve the situation.

No it's not. Taking the law in to your own hands is vigilantism. There's all manner of case law and actual law regarding what you are allowed to do and not do. If a shoplifter is walking out of Sam's with a cart of booze and I detain them I'm not a vigilante. I'm not operating outside the law.

AladainAF · Nov 13, 2021

Lendarios said:
I'm not an expert at Wisconsin laws, but it is my understanding that the law made posesion of firearms illegal by a minor as a baseline, and then they carved out exceptions, making it legal under certain circumstances.

What you guys are saying and the defense is saying is that even if kyle does not fall under any known exception, it is still legal for him to open carry his rifle as a minor in Wisconsin.
Which basically renders the law unapplicable.
If kyle doesn't fall under any exception then the top part should apply that states minors are not allowed to carry weapons.

This is one of the most dumbest things posted on this forum since its exception.

Ambiturner · Nov 13, 2021

Lendarios said:
Vigilantism is exactly that. doing law enforcement stuff when the law enforcement agencies are not doing their job.

It must certainly is preventing people from doing crimes. They key element of vigilantism is that the government cant or wont help solve the situation.

You heard it here folks, walking a lady to her car in a bad neighborhood makes you a vigilante

Jive Turkey · Nov 13, 2021

Lendarios said:
The prosecution is doing what the prosecution is supposed to do.
They are not supposed to go easy on kyle, they are also not there to find the truth. They are there to get a conviction.

The state is not there to convict innocent people. This is a retarded statement.

Masakari · Nov 13, 2021

Lendarios said:
Vigilantism is exactly that. doing law enforcement stuff when the law enforcement agencies are not doing their job.

It must certainly is preventing people from doing crimes. They key element of vigilantism is that the government cant or wont help solve the situation.

You know on Reddit, speaking your mind in opposition to the majority gets you insta-perma banned. Why are Conservative forums not as authoritarian?

Cad · Nov 13, 2021

Arbitrary said:
It's worse than that. The first person he killed that led to the entire chain of events was the child rapist. We've got video of him acting erratically, we've got his record, we've got him chasing Kyle, we've got eye witnesses testimony he had a chain and Kyle's story is the dude told him that he'd kill him if he caught him alone (sounds plausible), the dude chased him, Kyle pointed his rifle at him to deter him, it didn't, the child rapist grabbed his gun and he shot him.

And there's the prosecutor arguing that he fired too many rounds (in under a second). He was going down after the first shot, why did you keep firing? Why didn't you offer first aid? You play Call of Duty right Kyle?

Cops get a warrant for Vapor Bicep's phone. The prosecution says don't execute that warrant. The FBI has footage they never released so they release some of the grainy shit but they *lost* the high def footage that would show definitively whether or not Kyle pointed a gun at the time the prosecution says he was with that grainy photo. Did the cops do a DNA swab of the barrel to see if the child rapist's DNA was on it which would collaborate part of Kyle's story? No. They were told not to do that.

The only thing on the level here is the judge. He's a Midwest boomer judge with Midwest boomer sensibilities. He and the people like him are going to retire someday. Think of what the judges will look like in ten or fifteen years.

View attachment 382105

Oh hey, my judge has a pussyhat on. Just shoot me now I guess.

I've been in court with lesbian judges with blue/pink hair...

it goes about exactly like you would think, too.

Zapatta · Nov 13, 2021

How many people did these folks actually shoot? Pretty sure the answer is zero.

If more Kyles had shown up in Kenosha the visiting team probably would have fucked off and their town wouldnt still be in ashes a year later.

Kenosha Rebuilding After Protests And Violence Last Year

www.msn.com

Cad · Nov 13, 2021

Rajaah said:
Question for any lawyers here like Cad

Can Rittenhouse still sue all these media outlets for defamation even if he is found guilty?

What about the tweets from Biden, LeBron, etc? Are those sue-able in general?

I'd like to see this kid make hundreds of millions off of these vultures.

Question for the room in general: Does Rittenhouse have a better shot at success in politics if he spends time in jail, or if he gets off? What is better for his image long-term in the public consciousness? Thinking of a few leaders of the past here who spent time in jail and emerged exponentially more popular due to their martyrdom, like Mandela. If Kyle does go to jail, I hope when he gets out that people hoist him on their shoulders.

Obviously I hope that he gets off and that he makes an example out of every news outlet that slandered him.

Defamation law is not cut and dried at all and there's a ton of "it depends" on it. A guilty verdict would probably kill all the defamation cases because the jury deciding that would give cover to whatever they wanted to say about him.

Cad · Nov 13, 2021

Lendarios said:
The worst they have called him is a vigilante, which he definitely is.

A vigilante enforces the law or goes after bad guys, shit for brains. Kyle defended himself against people who attacked him, he didn't seek them out.

I know the definition of words is not something you're big on, but god damn. Can you try to not be wrong about ONE thing? Just one time.

Jive Turkey · Nov 13, 2021

Lendarios said:
It wasn't slander. Kyle was formally charged by a crime and put on trial.

If they continue bad mouthing after he is found not guilty, then yes he has a case, but until then no, there is no slander.

You have a presumption of innocence. Publicly referring to him as a murderer - especially if you're supposed to be a news organization - is most certainly slander. What is wrong with you?

Cad · Nov 13, 2021

Lendarios said:
Defending property that is not yours is not undertaking law enforcement?

Are you for real?

Kyle wasn't attacked while defending property, shit for brains.

I thought you watched the trial? Did you watch it with the subtitles on?

Jive Turkey · Nov 13, 2021

Lendarios said:
I'll take your word for it, since I only watch the trial and not any reporting associated with it.

lol then why are you commenting about it???

Get a free Kyle Rittenhouse at Culver's

Ssraeszha Raider

Golden Baronet of the Realm

Karazhan Raider

Tranny Chaser

Krugman's Fax Machine

Trump's Staff

Bronze Baron of the Realm

All labs matter!

Tranny Chaser

Best Rabbit

Ssraeszha Raider

Karen

scientia potentia est

Krugman's Fax Machine

scientia potentia est

scientia potentia est

Karen

scientia potentia est

Karen